The 2014 Royal Rumble could have been special. It wasn't. We could have seen the rise of a new mega-star in WWE. What we saw was a man past his prime (if he ever had one) get booed out of the building to end one of the biggest events of the wrestling year. That would have been fine and dandy if he were heel, but he wasn't. The story of the 2014 Royal Rumble could have been a joyful one. Instead, wrestling fans were left scratching their heads or underwhelmed. In the case of myself, both.

I woke up at 6:50am today, as I normally do on a weekday. My first thought? "How could Vince McMahon be THAT disconnected?" Yes, as much as I didn't want to think about WWE first thing in the morning, I did. Now, for those of you who don't know me personally, I stopped watching WWE a few years ago. I had come to the conclusion that the product WWE wanted to put on just wasn't for me and my personal interests. I got tired of asking "Why?" and rolling my eyes every time I watched. Understand that when I say that I stopped watching WWE, I don't mean wrestling in general. Some people are of the opinion that WWE is the be-all-end-all of professional wrestling. I am not one of those people. I love wrestling, and I don't think I could ever stop watching some form of wrestling straight up. Anyway, in an attempt to get back on the air and have fun with my podcasting mates again, I decided to begin watching Raw about two weeks ago. Now, although I haven't been watching WWE, I still know what goes on for the most part, thanks in part to the few WWE fans on my social media feeds.

What I saw last night during the Royal Rumble reminded me all too well of why I stopped giving energy to the WWE.

Let's take a trip back in time, almost a decade ago, to the 2005 Royal Rumble. Before last night's event, I spoke on the RantEM Rumble Pre-Show about how one of my favorite Rumble moments came at the 2005 Royal Rumble, when Vince McMahon blew out both quads trying to slide into the ring. But that's not what we're talking about today. I bring up the 2005 Royal Rumble for the winner of that event. After eliminating each other simultaneously, Batista threw John Cena to the outside to win a spot in the WrestleMania 21 main event. Imagine, if you will, that that didn't happen. Imagine if someone like Kurt Angle or Shawn Michaels won that Rumble. Would Batista or John Cena be as big of stars as they are now? I would think John Cena would, but I have my doubts about Batista. While the Rumble win wasn't what made Batista's rise to the top memorable (I attribute that to the Evolution storyline), imagine if Batista were just thrown in a match with Triple H at a random Raw, did the job to Triple H, and went down to the midcard at WM 21. "Ok, what's your point, Lex?"

My point is that WWE decided to make a star that night.

Now, my own personal feelings aside (Batista's a turd), WWE made money with Batista. Not anywhere near as much money they made with John Cena, but WWE did make money with Batista. WWE had a chance to make a lot of future earnings last night by putting Daniel Bryan over in a grandiose manner, but they didn't. They decided to go with the guy who won the event nearly a decade earlier.

The question is, "Why?"

Batista has a big role in an upcoming movie that looks to capitalize on the current comic book movie craze. Does Vince McMahon hope in his heart of hearts that Disney/Marvel Studios will promote Batista as a "WWE Superstar?" It's not as if Batista is the lead role, and I don't see an ensemble cast role leading to anything major. I can't say that I'm familiar with the Guardians of the Galaxy books, but I can't see Dave getting his own spinoff film. Even if all that were to happen, did Batista really need a Royal Rumble win? I don't think so.

Maybe it was in Batista's contract that, to return, he needed a Rumble win. If this is true, it would be in line with my personal feelings of the guy. And in case you have pleasant thoughts of how nice it would be to meet the former Leviathan in-person, there are several fans out there (including myself) that can tell you: you will probably be met with the ol' one-fingered salute.

Let's get to the last night's Royal Rumble now.

The night was off to a good start with two decent-to-good matches. The Tag Title switch surprised me that they would make a title change on a pre-show, but I'm told that's somewhat commonplace these days. Fair enough. Not a big deal. Then Bray Wyatt and Daniel Bryan opened the show with a match that exceeded everyone's expectations. "Bryan's working the first match so he can rest for the Rumble" I thought to myself. "Bryan lost the match so he can win something big at the end of the night, like Bret Hart at WM 10. Makes Bray look strong going into WM 30, too. This is pretty damn good booking right here." Hell, I even gave a nod to Lesnar/Big Show for making Lesnar look strong and (hopefully) taking Big Show out of the picture for a while. The crowd booed and jeered for Cena vs Orton, which was expected when you serve the same pile of grool for dinner as frequently as they do with Cena vs Orton. The match was nothing special, but what little air it had in it was deflated by the frustration of the crowd.

Things were zooming by at that point, and it was time for the big match. The 2014 Royal Rumble.

Now, I didn't think Bryan would make an appearance until #30. Wouldn't make sense to bring him out any earlier. "Hey, Lex! Bryan wasn't even advertised for the Royal Rumble match!" Neither was Kevin Nash, but that didn't stop his big, sandbaggin' ass from coming down to the ring. Oh, by the way, what a big surprise, eh? *Eye roll* <----See, there's the eye roll! Save that for future reference...

As we get closer to 30, it's obvious that Roman Reigns is getting a push in a strong direction. I personally don't see a whole lot in Reigns, but pushing new talent is definitely a good thing, so long as they aren't totally devoid of any upside.

Wait, here it is! #30! 10! 9! 8! 7! 6! 5! 4! 3! 2! 1!.......

"What the hell is this?"

My face had a look like I just guzzled down a carton of sour milk.

I like Rey Mysterio. I don't have the disdain for him that many of my cohorts here at RantEM probably do. I enjoy his work. But boy, if I've ever seen anyone being fed to the wolves, this was it. Bryan didn't show up. Batista won the Rumble. Bray Wyatt moved on to John Cena. The hottest wrestler WWE has right now just did the job in the opening match on one of the biggest shows of the year.

Time for another analogy! Imagine you owned an Ice Cream Truck, and you parked at your usuall spot you do every day around noon. People like your ice cream. It's not always the best, but there's something about it that keeps them coming back. Maybe nostalgia. Yeah, probably nostalgia. And habit. Probably habit, too. Anyway, there's a long line at your truck as you're getting your ice cream prepared, and the line is chanting "MINT CHIP! MINT CHIP! MINT CHIP" All of 'em. Now let's say you look around in your truck, and you have a tub of Mint Chip sitting there, looking pristine and fresh. BUT, you also have a tub of Rocky Road sitting over there that's 10 years past it's expiration, and you REALLY like Rocky Road. Plus, you overpaid for this expired tub of... Rocky Road, so you have to get your money's worth. Then, when you open up shop, and the people are screaming for Mint Chip, you force the expired Rocky Road down their gullets. And as they're coughing up the soured goods, they're booing you all the while.

Now, there are a few things wrong with this analogy as it pertains to WWE, and these errors are what upset me most about wrestling fans in general.

1) If your favorite ice cream joint starts serving rotten desserts, you're going to go somewhere else. This is not the case with most WWE fans, including those boisterous fans in Pittsburgh and those demanding refunds for the PPV they purchased at home. These fans might even take a week off from Raw, but they'll surely be back the week after, posting their thoughts on the product all over their Twitter and Facebook pages, even though there's plenty of other wrestling out there to be taken in.

2) You don't usually pre-pay for ice cream without at least making sure you're getting what you expected. This is just the way it is. You spend $65 on a PPV, and as long as it goes from 8pm to 10:45pm uninteruppted, you have no grounds for demanding a refunded. This is even the case with advertising a certain wrestler to be at an event that doesn't show up, because the card is always subject to change. You got burned. Eat the $65 and don't spend another dime on WWE merchandise. But that seems to be something too difficult to do for most fans to follow through on. Even myself, who doesn't watch the product, spends time and energy reading stories and posts about the WWE. Paying attention is still paying something.

The outrage over the 2014 Royal Rumble, however, goes beyond fans. Check out this string of Tweets from Mick Foley; a guy who NEVER speaks ill of the WWE and is always putting a positive spin on the most questionable of situations:

Last night, I watched my first WWE PPV in what seems like forever, but it induced the same reaction I used to have before I stopped watching. Me rolling my eyes and asking, "Why?"

So to bring this article to a close, I want you to think about this: The backlash last night was about business. We all want to see good wrestling succeed and make money. We all want to see good wrestlers and good people succeed and make money. Last night, we lost at both of those. WWE will do just fine come WrestleMania, financials-wise. And sure, they could do a "Microsoft" and flip the ship completely. But I'll always be wondering, "What if Daniel Bryan won the 2014 Royal Rumble..."

It's a rare occurrence that when I review a film for this site, it's a series I'm truly a fan of. I mean, all the films I even bother with are ones that interest me in the first place, so there's always a good chance that I'll like what I'm watching. However, it's usually a film I'm "taking a chance on" via my local Redbox kiosk, and I'm always upfront and honest with each film I review. I must confess, in full disclosure, that I am a fan of the Child's Play series. Or Chucky Series. Call it whatever you want. "Child's Play" sounds classier, so I'll use that. However, that fact does not protect it from any harsh criticisms. Instead, the film does a fine job of protecting itself. Here's my review...

There have been rumors, as far back as 2008, that the original Child's Play film was getting a reboot. It was even mentioned in the commentary of the 20th anniversary DVD release. Years went by, however, and no news had been released. No news until just about a year ago, that is, when Universal announced Curse of Chucky, the 6th film in the long running series. It was set to be penned and directed by Don Mancini, the writer of the original Child's Play script. So, was it a good move to go for a direct-to-market sequel instead of a theatrical remake? The short answer for me is: Yes.

Curse of Chucky is mysterious and methodical to start. The film thrusts you into a large, gothic house where Sarah and her daughter Nica (a paraplegic) reside. They receive a package and yep, you guessed it, there's Chucky. Sarah is mysteriously murdered that very evening, and the rest of Nica's immediate family (sister Barb, brother-in-law Ian, niece Alice, and nanny Jill) come to the house for the funeral. Chucky begins picking people off one-by-one, and everything comes to a head. Sounds like the usual, and for the most part, it is. But there's a lot more to this plot than I can explain without spoiling too much. What I can tell you, however, is that Curse of Chucky is good. How good? Allow me to explain further.

Right off the bat, I need to commend Don Mancini on his direction of the film. Mancini was slaughtered by critics, and even fans, with Seed of Chucky (the last entry in the series before Curse). He took the response and used it as fuel to make "Curse." Not only is the plot sharply written, the camera work is stylish and elegant. Don't let the gore and special fx deceive you, this is a classy film. It's a classy film because Mancini respects film in genreal and isn't out to just cash in another check. Not only does he respect film, but he respects what he's built and the fanbase as well. This could have been a really boring, mundane 90 minutes in the hands of another director, but Mancini scratches the visual itch just as much as he does the itch for the series lore.

There's a scene involving a game of Russian Roulette with a bowl of poisoned chili that is made up of beautiful shots and great suspense. Being a direct-to-market film, the budget on this movie was low. In fact, it was the lowest budget in the series. Yet Mancini was able to hold a professional look. Unfortunately, the thing that looks the most cheap at times is the doll. This is my biggest gripe of the film. Depending on the shot, Chucky goes from looking like the plain ol' Good Guy Doll, to having a feminine chunk-face. It's weird, and some will get caught on that for sure, but it was a small gripe in the grand scheme of things.

The majority of the film takes place in the aforementioned gothic house. I didn't mind this, but it was good when we got a shot from outside. That's what a small budget will do to you, though. And like I stated above, Don Mancini masks this with good writing and interesting characters. Fiona Dourif (the daughter of Brad Dourif, the voice of Chucky) does a masterful job of playing Nica. Obviously, playing a paraplegic isn't the easiest of tasks, so I give Fiona a lot of credit. Each of the other actors give their characters a genuine feel, and Brad Dourif kills (no pun intended, I swear) as Chucky once again.

By the end of the movie, I was like a giddy little girl. All the references in this film to past films is genius. It's like a treasure hunt for Chucky fans. It all wraps up together. From musical queues to old camera shots; from one liners to flat-out old footage... this film drips of a love letter to the fans. Curse of Chucky is rewarding, fulfilling, jaw dropping, and just a damn good film. A lot of people have complained about it being a direct-to-market film, and I know the stigma that has with it, but I love that it's direct-to-market. I no longer go to the theater, as I don't believe sitting in a room with 50 or more other people is the way to watch a movie in this day and age. I loved watching this on my living room TV by myself with only my thoughts of past films and their connection to Curse to distract me. Kudos to Universal for this call and kudos to Mancini for taking on (and kicking the shit out of) that challenge. When Curse of Chucky was over, I felt satisfied. Satisfied as a longtime Child's Play fan. Satisfied as a horror-enthusiast.

To wrap this up, not only can I recommend Curse of Chucky to fans of the series, but I can recommend it to horror movie fans in general with complete confidence. It's a perfect flick for Halloween, but I suggest you watch it before then as well. Curse of Chucky is currently available through digital download, with the DVD and Blu Ray coming out on 10/8.

Reason to Stay After the Credits: YES!! DON'T MISS THIS SCENE!!!

4.5/5

If you aren't familiar with the oddness of a Rob Zombie film, or Rob Zombie in general, there will be several things in the first few minutes of The Lords of Salem that will have you turning the film off in disgust. I'll be frank, so to not waste your time reading this review: If you didn't like any of Zombie's other films, you won't like this, either. Okay, so I guess if you're still reading this, you like Zombie's films and are excited to hear what sort of macabre situation Rob sets us up for. Let's get into it, but I'm warning you, there's no turning back...

Rob Zombie's latest dive into horror is about witches. I have to admit that when I first heard what the film was about, I was skeptical. I'm usually not a fan of witches in movies, unless it's Hocus Pocus, because that movie is all sorts of awesome. But I'll save that for October and The Graveside Report. Back to The Lords of Salem. A group of witches from Salem, MA is hunted down by Rev. John Hawthorne for performing "the devil's music" in the woods of Salem, but they are doing much more than that. The coven has chosen a woman to be the surrogate for the devil's child. After performing a dance around the fire... naked (full frontal)... they cut the baby right out of the pregnant woman. However, when the child is born a normal human, the lead witch (played by Meg Foster) repeatedly spits in the baby's face. It's an intense opening, but it's only prep for the rest of the weird stuff to follow. The scene certainly makes the viewer uncomfortable, even if the baby is obviously an animatronic.

We jump forward to present day where we see Heidi (played by Sherri Moon Zombie), a local Radio Personality. Heidi is a part of "The Big H" radio show, teaming with Herman "Whitey" Salvador (played by Jeff Daniel Phillips) and Herman "Munster" Jackson (played by Ken Foree). The film takes place over a week, and at the start of that week, Heidi receives a vinyl record at the station sent by "The Lords" in a wooden box. When played, the music makes Heidi shut down and envision the burning of the witches seen in the first scene. The record is played over the air and the group is dubbed The Lords of Salem. As Heidi hears the record more, she begins to go crazy, which leads to a few "didn't really happen" scenes. All the while, Francis Mathias is trying to crack the code of this mysterious record, biting off a little more than he can chew. Not wanting to spoil too much, that's all I can say about the plot. It's strange. It's odd. It's Zombie.

Sherri Moon Zombie does a fantastic job as Heidi, and you can tell that the role was written for her. She plays all her ranges superbly and has the right "look" for the character and the subject matter. However, my favorite performance was Bruce Davison as Francis Mathias. Davison brings a much welcomed kindness and enthusiasm to the film as the could-be heroine. There are a few Zombie regulars, like Ken Foree, but I was surprised by the lack of usually suspects. Sid Haig apparently shot a scene for the film, but the scene was cut in editing, which is very unfortunate. Even though the style of the film is familiar to what Zombie has done in the past, it's set in Massachusetts, which is quite a change of scenery from anything else he's done. Still, Zombie hits the mark with the feeling of the Northeast, and everything works on that level.

More than any of his other films, it feels like Zombie's vision was inspired, specifically by Stanley Kubrick. Quite a few times you'll notice nods to The Shining and Eyes Wide Shut. It makes for an explosive combination that can be hit or miss. One thing I always look for when I'm reviewing a film is how it stuck with me the next day. There are several images that have stuck with me after watching The Lords of Salem, and for that, I can appreciate it. However, the movie takes a turn down a dark alleyway, and for that, it mars the experience. I believe that films are art, but I also believe that they need to keep one foot on the ground. The Lords of Salem leaps into insanity in it's third act, leaving me scratching my head a bit. Apparently, some have claimed that Zombie meant this to be a "metaphorical and spiritual" prequel to his Halloween films. Is this suggesting that Michael Myers is the devil's child, or does it have a more abstract meaning?

I've enjoyed all of Zombies films, but I'm not sure where I'd place this one. It satisfies the "crazy imagery" itch, but falls short in the story department. It limps across the finish line with a blown hamstring after sprinting through the first two acts. Still, The Lords of Salem is worth a watch if you're also a fan of Zombie's previous works. It's worth it just to say you saw some crazy shit, and trust me, you will see some crazy shit.